* [PATCH] cgroups: don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER
@ 2008-09-14 17:37 Pekka J Enberg
2008-09-15 17:55 ` Paul Menage
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pekka J Enberg @ 2008-09-14 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: akpm; +Cc: linux-kernel, menage, balbir
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
The revoke patches, for example, select CONFIG_MM_OWNER independently of
cgroups. Therefore, don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER in cgroup specific code.
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
---
include/linux/cgroup.h | 4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
index c98dd7c..e270ec3 100644
--- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
+++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
@@ -413,10 +413,10 @@ static inline int cgroupstats_build(struct cgroupstats *stats,
#endif /* !CONFIG_CGROUPS */
-#ifdef CONFIG_MM_OWNER
+#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
extern void
cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new);
-#else /* !CONFIG_MM_OWNER */
+#else /* !CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR */
static inline void
cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new)
{
--
1.5.4.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cgroups: don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER
2008-09-14 17:37 [PATCH] cgroups: don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER Pekka J Enberg
@ 2008-09-15 17:55 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-15 17:56 ` Pekka Enberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Menage @ 2008-09-15 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pekka J Enberg; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel, balbir
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
>
> The revoke patches, for example, select CONFIG_MM_OWNER independently of
> cgroups. Therefore, don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER in cgroup specific code.
Yes, the existing code doesn't seem quite right - if !CONFIG_MM_OWNER
then we don't need to even define a trivial version of
cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks()
But your patch is too specific - tying the existance of
cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() to the memory controller would break other
controllers (e.g. the memrlimit or swap controllers, which also want
to use it)
How about:
- any cgroup that needs mm-owner callbacks selects an option
CGROUP_MM_OWNER_CALLBACK
- CGROUP_MM_OWNER_CALLBACK selects MM_OWNER and triggers the
definition of a non-trivial cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() function
Paul
>
> Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> ---
> include/linux/cgroup.h | 4 ++--
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> index c98dd7c..e270ec3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -413,10 +413,10 @@ static inline int cgroupstats_build(struct cgroupstats *stats,
>
> #endif /* !CONFIG_CGROUPS */
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_MM_OWNER
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR
> extern void
> cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new);
> -#else /* !CONFIG_MM_OWNER */
> +#else /* !CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR */
> static inline void
> cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new)
> {
> --
> 1.5.4.3
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cgroups: don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER
2008-09-15 17:55 ` Paul Menage
@ 2008-09-15 17:56 ` Pekka Enberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Pekka Enberg @ 2008-09-15 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Menage; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel, balbir
Hi Paul,
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>> From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
>>
>> The revoke patches, for example, select CONFIG_MM_OWNER independently of
>> cgroups. Therefore, don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER in cgroup specific code.
>
> Yes, the existing code doesn't seem quite right - if !CONFIG_MM_OWNER
> then we don't need to even define a trivial version of
> cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks()
>
> But your patch is too specific - tying the existance of
> cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() to the memory controller would break other
> controllers (e.g. the memrlimit or swap controllers, which also want
> to use it)
>
> How about:
>
> - any cgroup that needs mm-owner callbacks selects an option
> CGROUP_MM_OWNER_CALLBACK
>
> - CGROUP_MM_OWNER_CALLBACK selects MM_OWNER and triggers the
> definition of a non-trivial cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() function
Yeah, sounds good to me. I just want to be able to select
CONFIG_MM_OWNER separately for my revoke patches.
Pekka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-09-15 17:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-09-14 17:37 [PATCH] cgroups: don't depend on CONFIG_MM_OWNER Pekka J Enberg
2008-09-15 17:55 ` Paul Menage
2008-09-15 17:56 ` Pekka Enberg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox